The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (October 13) issued notice on Indian Youth Congress' (IYC) plea seeking reconsideration of its request to hold protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar by undertaking fresh, reasoned assessment and examining whether security, traffic and public order concerns can be addressed through reasonable conditions.

Justice Amit Mahajan issued notice on three prayers in the petition and listed the matter in November. The plea has been filed by IYC President Uday Bhanu Chib.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for IYC submitted that the plea seeking permission to hold protest was arbitrarily rejected. He pressed for issuance of notice, adding that he will amend the prayers pursuant to a circular issued by Delhi Police yesterday de-notifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.

However ASG Sharma opposed notice and said that the entire petition pertains to holding a demonstration at Jantar Mantar.

"All other prayers flow from that prayer. We have denotified it (Jantar Mantar) pursuant to orders of Supreme Court," ASG said.

ASG referred to Supreme Court's orders from last week, asking the Centre to consider whether another location should be designated for peaceful protests in place of Jantar Mantar, considering the suggestion that an alternative venue equipped with adequate amenities for protesters needs to be identified.

Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground East Delhi have been designated as new venues for organizing protests or demonstrations.

ASG said that until and unless petitioner challenges de-notification order, the present petition cannot sustain.

Luthra meanwhile said he had a problem with the conditions imposed over holding of protest.

"Completely non speaking order. Absolutely frivolous. I am saying conditions in 2022 order which remain valid are bad in law," he said.

The court thereafter issued notice on three prayers c, d and f in the petition and listed the matter on November 17.

Through prayer (c), the plea seeks a declaration that the 2022 Standing Order cannot be enforced to impose an automatic or disproportionate prohibition on peaceful assemblies without an individualised assessment and consideration of less restrictive regulatory measures.

The plea challenges the 2022 Standing Order (SO 48) to the extent that an internal administrative instruction is interpreted as an independent source of substantive power to prohibit rights guaranteed under Articles 19(l)(a) and 19(l)(b), without a lawful constitutional and statutory basis and without the individualized assessment contemplated by the Standing Order itself.

Prayer (d) seeks a direction to the authorities to reconsider IYC's request by undertaking a fresh, reasoned and individualised assessment and examining whether security, traffic and public order concerns can be addressed through reasonable conditions.

Through prayer (f), the plea seeks a declaration that the 10 day requirement cannot be treated as an absolute bar where the 2022 Standing Order itself contemplates consideration of applications submitted within a shorter period, subject to the availability of space and sufficient time to make necessary arrangements.

The plea argues that the police cannot convert the power to regulate a peaceful assembly into a power to prohibit it, without an individualized and proportionate assessment.

The IYC had applied to the Delhi Police on September 25 for a peaceful demonstration of approximately 100–150 persons.

While doing so, it had undertaken to comply with all lawful conditions concerning security, traffic, discipline and public order.

However, the plea states that despite repeated follow-ups, the rejection was communicated only on October 01, the first proposed date of the protest.

The petition invokes Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and challenges the alleged mechanical application of the protest guidelines.

It also relies upon settled Supreme Court jurisprudence protecting the right to peaceful assembly and requiring proportionate regulation.

The plea has been filed through Advocate Roopesh Singh Bhadauria.

(Compiled by Malavika Prasad)